REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of / ))
Joint Application by SBC Communications / )
Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, / )
and Southwestern Bell Communications / ) / CC Docket No. 01-194
Services, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long / )
Distance for Provision of In-Region, / )
InterLATA Services in Arkansas and Missouri / )
REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM R. DYSART
STATE OF MISSOURI )
)
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS REPLY AFFIDAVIT
SUBJECTPAGE
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AFFIDAVIT......
SWBT’s Performance Measurements RESULTS Demonstrate Continued Compliance with the Checklist Items.
El Paso/PacWest’s Loop Provisioning Claims Are Dated and Mischaracterize SWBT’s True Performance.....
DS1 Loop Provisioning in Arkansas......
BRI Loop Provisioning in Arkansas......
Stand Alone DSL Loop Provisioning in Arkansas......
DS1 Loop Provisioning in Missouri......
Line Shared DSL Loop Provisioning in Missouri......
DS3 and Dark Fiber Performance Measurements......
Navigator’s Nebulous “UNE T1,” “Complex Services” and “Repair” Claims Cannot Be Substantiated and Do Not Account For SWBT’s Strong Performance Results.
SWBT’s Strong Flow-Through Performance Provides CLECs a Meaningful Opportunity to Compete and Is Not Undermined By Restatements in PM 13.
the clecs’ REMEDY PLAN COMPLAINTS SHOULD BE REJECTED.......
SWBT’s Performance Remedy Plans Are Self-Executing......
SWBT Has Been and Remains Committed to the Six-Month Review Process......
Criticisms of the Statistical methodologIES used in SWBT’s Performance Remedy Plans are unfounded....
The Test Used for Benchmark Measures Is a Statistical Test......
The Statistical Test Does Not Arbitrarily Reduce the Associated Benchmark......
The Statistical Process in the Performance Remedy Plan Automatically Sanctions Deficient Performance......
Z-Tel Fails to Fully Recognize Other Aspects of the Performance Remedy Plan......
SWBT Arkansas PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
(June 2001 – August 2001)………….……………………..……….….…………...... ATTACHMENT A
SWBT Missouri PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
(June 2001 – August 2001)………………………………..……….….…………...... ATTACHMENT B
SWBT Arkansas DOJ PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS TRACKING REPORT
(AUGUST 2001)………….……………...…..…….………………………………………....ATTACHMENT c
Missouri DOJ PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS TRACKING REPORT
(AUGUST 2001)………….……………...…..…….………………………………………....ATTACHMENT d
Texas DOJ PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS TRACKING REPORT
(AUGUST 2001)………………………………...…..…….…………………………………...ATTACHMENT E
Performance Results for Navigator Telecommunications, LLc …..Attachment F
Letter to the Public Utility Commission of Texas from Southwestern Bell Telephone Dated SEPTEMBER 17, 2001…………………………...………….…...…..Attachment G
Performance Results for AT&T Corp……………………………………….. …..Attachment H
1
REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
I, William R. Dysart, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, do hereby depose and state as follows:
1.My name is William R. Dysart. I am the same William R. Dysart who filed with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”), on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (“SWBT”), initial affidavits (“Initial Dysart Arkansas Affidavit” (App. A – AR, Tab 7 to SWBT’s initial AR/MO Application) and “Initial Dysart Missouri Affidavit” (App. A – MO, Tab 6 to SWBT’s initial AR/MO Application)) and a joint affidavit with Daniel J. Coleman and David R. Smith (“LMOS Joint Affidavit” (App. A – AR, Tab 5 to SWBT’s initial AR/MO Application; App. A – MO, Tab 4 to SWBT’s initial AR/MO Application)) on August 20, 2001 in this proceeding.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AFFIDAVIT
2. The purpose of my affidavit is to reply to the comments of AT&T,[1] El Paso/PacWest,[2] McLeodUSA,[3] Navigator,[4] Sprint[5] and Z-Tel[6] regarding SWBT’s wholesale performance in Arkansas and Missouri, and the protections afforded by SWBT’s Arkansas and Missouri Performance Remedy Plans against potential “backsliding.” My affidavit demonstrates that, notwithstanding the few challenges to the strength of SWBT’s wholesale performance, SWBT continues to provide Arkansas and Missouri CLECs with a meaningful opportunity to compete in the local exchange market. My affidavit also demonstrates that AT&T’s and other commenters’ criticisms about the “self-executing” feature of SWBT’s Performance Remedy Plans, as well as their criticisms about SWBT’s commitment to the six-month performance measurements review process, are thoroughly misplaced. Indeed, key considerations omitted by the commenters provide even more assurances that these plans, and SWBT’s commitment to implementing them as intended, can be counted on to foster post-entry checklist compliance. Finally, my affidavit demonstrates that Z-Tel’s criticisms of the statistical methodologies employed in SWBT’s plans are unfounded and should be rejected.
SWBT’s Performance Measurements RESULTS Demonstrate Continued Compliance with the Checklist Items
3.SWBT’s performance results demonstrate that SWBT continues to provide competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) a meaningful opportunity to compete in the Arkansas and Missouri local telephone markets. In particular, these results demonstrate that SWBT provides Arkansas and Missouri CLECs nondiscriminatory access to the pertinent 14 point checklist items specified in Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“the Act”).[7]
4.On September 4, 2001 the Missouri Public Service Commission (“Missouri Commission”) took special note of its Staff’s June 28 observation that SWBT’s performance reflected the “highest success ratios . . . to date.”[8] In its Second Consultation Report, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (“Arkansas Commission”) specifically rejected commenters’ complaints of deficient performance.[9] SWBT’s most recent results reflect continued strength. In fact, as noted in greater detail below, these results are better than those which accompanied SWBT’s reply filing preceding the FCC’s issuance of its SBC Kansas/OklahomaOrder.[10]
5.In Arkansas, SWBT’s performance met or surpassed parity or benchmark standards for 94.3% (215 of 228) performance measures having ten or more data points for at least two of the last three months. SWBT provided parity service to Arkansas CLECs or met the benchmark for 96.3% (131 of 136) of Tier 2 measures and 96.2% (151 of 157) of Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 measures in at least two of the last three months.
6.In Missouri, SWBT’s performance met or surpassed parity or benchmark standards for 94.2% (277 of 294) of the performance measures having ten or more data points during at least two of the last three months. SWBT provided parity service to Missouri CLECs or met benchmark performance levels for 96.6% (173 of 179) of Tier 2 measures and 96.1% (195 of 203) of Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 measures in at least two of the last three months.
7.The foregoing performance levels for both Arkansas and Missouri exceed those reported for both Kansas and Oklahoma in the Dysart Kansas/Oklahoma Reply Affidavit. During the three-month period concluding in October, 2000, SWBT’s Kansas performance met or surpassed parity or benchmark standards for 88.2% of the performance measures having ten or more data points for at least two of the last three months, 89.1% of Tier 2 measures, and 89.1% of Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 measures in at least two of the three months. During the same period, SWBT’s Oklahoma performance met or surpassed parity or benchmark standards for 87.2% of the performance measures having ten or more data points for at least two of the last three months, 86.8% of Tier 2 measures, and 84.5% of Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 measures in at least two of the three months.[11]
8.SWBT’s Arkansas performance results further demonstrate that the performance standards (either parity or a benchmark) have been met in at least two of the past three months for 95.4% of the 131 measures directly associated with checklist item (ii) – access to network elements and OSS. These results refute Navigator’s allegation that SWBT has failed to comply with checklist item (ii) – access to network elements and OSS in Arkansas.[12] Likewise, in Missouri, SWBT has met or surpassed the performance standards (either parity or benchmarks) in at least two of the past three months (June - August) for 92.7% of the 164 measures associated with checklist item (ii). These results disprove the assertion of El Paso/PacWest that “SBC’s continuing OSS problems fail to satisfy checklist item 2” in Missouri.[13] In sum, both commenters’ complaints are without merit given SWBT’s strong overall OSS performance.
El Paso/PacWest’s Loop Provisioning Claims Are Dated and Mischaracterize SWBT’s True Performance
9.El Paso/PacWest assert that “poor provisioning of x-DSL, DS 1 and BRI loops have impeded development of a competitive DSL market in Arkansas.”[14] They also complain about provisioning of DSL line shared loops and DS1 loops in Missouri.[15] However, neither provides any concrete data or other evidence supporting their claim. Moreover, their reliance on AT&T’s April 12, 2001 comments filed with the Arkansas Commission is misplaced because, first, those comments have been superseded by more recent data spanning several months and, second, AT&T has since abandoned the claim it once made about SWBT’s Arkansas loop provisioning performance.[16] SWBT’s current data reflect continued strong performance with respect to the loop types identified by El Paso/PacWest.
DS1 Loop Provisioning in Arkansas
10.The vague criticism of El Paso/PacWest, as well as the equally unspecific claim of Navigator,[17] are refuted by SWBT’s DS1 performance results for Arkansas CLECs. These results reflect strong performance despite these CLECs’ complaints.
11.SWBT’s performance results for PM 55-04.1 (Average Installation Interval – DS1 Loops – 1-10 Loops) demonstrate that SWBT met or surpassed the three-day target for installing UNE DS1 orders for ten or fewer loops in seven of the last eight months, falling short in March by just 0.3 of a day. Over this period, the average installation interval for Arkansas CLECs was 2.8 days, under the three-day target. In addition, SWBT effectively met or surpassed the 95% benchmark in seven of the last eight months for PM 56-04.1 (Percent (UNEs) Installations Completed Within the Customer Requested Due Date – DS1 Loop – 1-10 Loops). Over this period, SWBT installed 97.0% of Arkansas CLECs’ orders for ten or fewer UNE DS1 loops within the requested due dates, exceeding the 95% benchmark.
12.SWBT’s on time performance for provisioning Arkansas CLECs’ DS1 loops is excellent. During the period from April through August 2001, SWBT missed only 8 of 393 (or just 2.0%) DS1 loop installation due dates, according to the results for PM 58-06 (Percent SWBT Caused Missed Due Dates – DS1 Loop). Furthermore, in two of these months, SWBT achieved perfect performance, missing none of the due dates for the 68 UNE DS1 loops installed in April or the 79 UNE DS1 loops installed in May. Only one of the 81 UNE DS1 loops installed in June was affected by a missed due date.
13.Finally, SWBT has provided DS1 loops of high quality. Performance data for PM 59-05 (Percent Trouble Reports Within 30 Days of Installation - N, T, C Orders - (UNE) DS1 Loops) demonstrate that just 49 (9.1%) of the 538 UNE DS1 loops installed for Arkansas CLECs since January were affected by trouble reports within 30 days of installation. Additionally, performance results for PM 65-05 (Trouble Report Rate – DS1 Loop) reflect that SWBT has achieved parity in each of the last five months.
BRI Loop Provisioning in Arkansas
14.SWBT’s performance results disprove El Paso/PacWest’s dated and nonspecific criticisms that SWBT’s poor provisioning of BRI loops have impeded development of a competitive DSL market in Arkansas.[18] The average installation interval for Arkansas CLECs’ orders for ten or fewer BRI loops has surpassed the four-day target interval in each of the past ten months during which such orders were received.[19] The average installation interval for CLEC orders over the September 2000 - August 2001 period was 2.7 days, well under the four-day target, as indicated by the available data for PM 55-03.1 (Average Installation Interval – BRI Loop – 1-10 Loops).
15.In addition, SWBT effectively met or surpassed the 95% benchmark for PM 56-03.1 (Percent (UNEs) Installations Completed Within the Customer Requested Interval – BRI Loop – 1-10 Loops)[20] in each of the past nine months during which orders were received. Over the past twelve months, 97.3% of Arkansas CLECs’ orders for ten or fewer BRI loops were installed within the customer requested due date (or three days prior to May 2001), as indicated by the available data for PM 56-03.1.[21]
16.Furthermore, Arkansas CLECs’ orders for BRI loops typically are affected by lower percentages of missed due dates than SWBT’s retail loops. SWBT has demonstrated parity performance in all six of the past twelve months during which ten or more CLEC BRI loops were installed, as shown by the data for PM 58-04 (Percent SWBT Caused Missed Due Dates – BRI Loop). SWBT installed 101 BRI circuits for Arkansas CLECs over the past ten months without missing a single due date.
17.Finally, SWBT provides Arkansas CLECs high quality BRI loops. Its performance results achieved parity in five of the past six months with sufficient sample sizes for PM 59-03 (Percent Trouble Reports within 30 Days of Installation – N, T, C Orders – BRI Loop).[22] Only five (5.0%) of the 101 BRI circuits installed for Arkansas CLECs over the past ten months were affected by installation trouble reports, comparable to the 3.0% installation trouble report rate experienced by SWBT’s retail customers.
Stand Alone DSL Loop Provisioning in Arkansas
18.SWBT’s results for its provisioning of Arkansas CLECs’ stand alone DSL loops also defeat El Paso/PacWest’s dated and nonspecific claim. In fact, SWBT’s Arkansas provisioning performance is quite strong.[23]
19.SWBT has met the five-day benchmark for PM 55.1-01 (Average Installation Interval – DSL – No Line Sharing – Requires No Conditioning) in each of the past seven months during which sample sizes were sufficient. Likewise, SWBT has met the ten-day benchmark for PM 55.1-02 (Average Installation Interval – DSL – No Line Sharing – Requires Conditioning) in each of the past four months during which sample sizes were sufficient. Over the past ten months, the average installation interval of 4.60 days for the 150 Arkansas CLECs’ stand alone DSL loops without conditioning, and the average interval of 9.43 days for the 120 stand alone DSL loop requiring conditioning, surpassed the five-day and ten-day benchmarks for PM 55.1-01 and PM 55.1-02, respectively.
20.In addition, performance results for PM 56-12.1 (Percent (UNEs) Installations Completed Within the Customer Requested Due Date – DSL – No Line Sharing – Non-Conditioned) demonstrate that SWBT has exceeded the 95% benchmark in each of the past four months (data reporting for PM 56-12 began in May 2001). Over this period, SWBT has installed 98% (100 of 101) of the stand alone, non-conditioned DSL loops ordered by Arkansas CLECs within the requested due dates. Although Arkansas CLECs have ordered only three stand alone DSL loops with conditioning (one in July and two in August), the data for PM 56-12.2 (Percent (UNEs) Installations Completed Within the Customer Requested Due Date – DSL – No Line Sharing – Conditioned) demonstrate that each was installed within the requested due date.
21.SWBT’s missed due date performance for provisioning stand alone DSL loops is also excellent. The performance results for PM 58-09 (Percent SWBT Caused Missed Due Dates – DSL – No Line Sharing) demonstrate that SWBT has met the 5% benchmark in each of the past eleven months. SWBT missed no due dates from February through July (and only 1 in August). Since the beginning of this year (January - August), only 2.2% (4) of the 178 stand alone DSL loops installed for CLECs by SWBT were affected by missed due dates.
22.Finally, the Arkansas stand alone DSL loops that SWBT installs are of high quality. Performance results for PM 59-08 (Percent Trouble Reports Within 30 Days of Installation – N, T, C Orders – DSL – No Line Sharing) demonstrate that SWBT has met the 6% benchmark in each of the past four months (May - August). Over the past six months (March – August), just 3.4% (5) of the 147 stand alone DSL loops installed for Arkansas CLECs were affected by installation trouble reports within 30 days of installation, well under the 6% benchmark standard. According to the results for PM 65-08 (Trouble Report Rate – DSL – No Line Sharing), SWBT has met the 3.0% benchmark in each of the last six months. During the period, trouble report rates were as low as 0.2% and did not exceed 1.6%.
DS1 Loop Provisioning in Missouri
23.El Paso/PacWest present no specific evidence that either has been denied a meaningful opportunity to compete relative to SWBT’s DS1 loop provisioning in Missouri. The available evidence suggests that SWBT’s provisioning performance for Missouri CLECs is solid.
24.SWBT’s performance results for PM 55-04.1 (Average Installation Interval – DS1 Loop – 1-10 Loops) demonstrate that the average installation interval for Missouri CLECs’ orders for ten or fewer DS1 loops over the past six months was 3.5 days, just one-half day above the three-day target. Over this period, SWBT installed 91.5% of CLECs’ DS1 loops orders within the CLECs’ requested due dates, just 3.5% below the 95% benchmark, according to results for PM 56-04.1 (Percent (UNEs) Installations Completed Within the Customer Requested Interval – DS1 Loop – 1-10 Loops).[24] These data reflect only relatively slight shortcomings from a statistical perspective. Furthermore, it is important to note that El Paso/PacWest does not prove any significant adverse competitive impact as a consequence of SWBT’s performance, nor do they submit any evidence that would suggest as much.
25.Finally, SWBT’s performance results have met parity in each of the past twelve months for PM 58-06 (Percent SWBT Caused Missed Due Dates – DS1 Loop). In addition, SWBT’s performance has met or exceeded parity in each of the past twelve months for PM 59-05 (Percent Trouble Reports Within 30 Days of Installation – N, T, C Orders – DS1 Loop). Thus, once again, the available data reflect that Missouri CLECs have been afforded a meaningful opportunity to compete, and El Paso/PacWest provide no concrete evidence suggesting otherwise, either as to CLECs generally or as to its own operations.
Line Shared DSL Loop Provisioning in Missouri
26.Despite El Paso/PacWest’s vague claim regarding installation of line shared DSL loop provisioning,[25] SWBT’s performance provides Missouri CLECs a meaningful opportunity to compete in the data services market.
27.SWBT’s performance results for PM 55.1-03 (Average Installation Interval – DSL – Line Sharing – Requires No Conditioning) demonstrate that SWBT has provided Missouri CLECs parity performance in each of the past three months, and in seven of the past nine months. Over the ten month period ended August 2001 (the period for which CLEC data are available), the average installation interval for CLECs’ DSL loops with line sharing (and not requiring conditioning) has been 4.24 days, compared to ASI retail customers’ 4.63 days.[26] Furthermore, the performance data for PM 56-14 (Percent (UNEs) Installations Completed Within the Customer Required Due Date – DSL – Line Sharing) demonstrate that SWBT has installed 94.9% (485) of Missouri CLECs’ 511 DSL loops with line sharing over the past four months. And, the most recent data show even better percentages for each of the last two months (96.4% for July, and 97.8% for August).